This is a record of a telecon held today between 1400 and 1500. Present: Andy Turner (AT), Michael Koutroumpas (MK), Chris Higgins (CH), Dave Rawnsley (DR), Gail Millin (GM), Paul Townend (PT), Keith Cole (KC), Ally Hume (AH), John Watt (JW) Apologies: Pascal Ekin (PE) - MK kicked off with the GLS status report. There has been an issue with geotools at the client end requiring an xsd to validate and configure. The proposed workaround was to generate a large "master" xsd that contained the definition of all the attributes that the GDAS could potentially serve up, even though most GML file instances would only contain a small subset. This didnt work as geotools created features with all attributes setting the majority to null. MK did some investigation and concluded this is most likely an artefact of geotools, PT agreed. Action: AT to investigate further, mail geotools developers and ask if this is a bug or a consequence of the standard. Action: MK/PT/AT, if it is a bug, estimate how much effort to fix and we will consider using SEE-GEO resources to do so - MK investigated the amount of work involved in generating a unique xsd for each GML file. Concluded significant if creating an OGSA-DAI (OD) activity that effectively geolinks xsd (1 from GDAS, 1 from the WFS). After discussion with CH, decided this was too much to be undertaking at this stage, especially if this is geotools bug. Another alternative is to use OGR to generate a duplicate GML file on each request - a consequence of this is that an xsd also gets generated. MK reported that initial trials indicated a geotools problem with this. Action: MK to investigate further. - Building the OGR library into our version of OD will allow output format to be specified in the request (default is GML). This workaround will allow Leeds to immediately display the results from GLS requests while working through the GML issues. Note that GML and Shapefiles will be zipped. Action: MK to attempt to complete OGR integration by Wed 11th. Action: PT to get client working with raster images and continue investigating the GML issues. - MK reported that has been exploring the asynchronous aspects of the WPS spec in association with requests to geolink data for the whole of Scotland, ie, it is possible to find out status of jobs that can take a long time. - PT/AT reported that the client was now configured to work with the Canadian data and was displaying resulting images. - Some discussion over reported problems with our software by the Univ of Zaragoza. Action: PT to investigate. Action: CH to contact and find out if they are using Spanish census data - PT found some bugs with the Canadian client and is recording. CH asked that people record testing results in accordance with that requested by Peter Schut in the email of 18t June entitled "Geolinking IE testing phase instructions". - KC requested that MIMAS be supplied with feedback on their observations concerning OD performance, most notably, those itemised in an email from PE dated 25/4/07. AH explained that he has been planning to address these issues in detail once his time was freed up post new release of OD. AH will do what he can in the meantime. Action: AH to respond, in so far as he can at the moment without spending a lot of time, to the MIMAS OD performance concerns. In detail post v3 OD release. Action: AH to respond to MKs email (29/6/07) on proposed approach to OD testing under SEE-GEO. - OGC liaison. CH reported would be attending Paris TC next week (Leeds in Paris independently and will come to the TC next Weds). Liaised with P Schut who will not be in Paris. WPS will become a full implementation specification in the near future (need to find out about what will happen with the GLS profile). CH asked did anyone have anything in particular they wanted followed up. GM requested information on who was implementing catalogues. CH replied that EDINA had experience of several implementations and would share. This topic was discussed at the JISC Geospatial WG meeting in Glasgow earlier this week. Action: CH to email David M-S and Kamie (who were at the GWG meeting) on this subject and make sure communication flowing optimally. Action: PT agrees to go to the OGC TC in Colorado Sept 17-20 as NCeSS representative for the SEE-GEO project. PT to organise. Action: CH to report back at next SEE-GEO mtg on main items of interest from Paris, including OGC-OGF liaison. - CH reported that a draft of the Consortium Agreement had been circulated earlier this week and was awaiting approval before circulating hardcopy for signing. KC noted that if it differed little from the JISC standards MIMAS would have no problem. - CH requested that as this phase of the project was near ending the partners turn their attention more to dissemination and building in security. CH met with the JISC Programme Manager (Alison Turner) earlier this week and requested that the possibility of SEE-GEO being given space on the JISC stand at AHM for doing demos be investigated. A link with the GEMS and GEESE projects was also discussed. AH will take steps to ensure that eScience/EPCC point people at us if this comes off. Action: CH to circulate dates for a mid-project SEE-GEO meeting (probably in Edinburgh though maybe somewhere nice). - JW reported on work he has been doing in association with Leeds (Junaid) to get Shibb installed. Creating own federation for this so can get international involvement if necessary. CH pointed out that this is out of scope for SEE-GEO and that JW should feel free to contact Fiona Culloch if needing detail on the UK Federation. JW replied that this was work being done anyway in relation to several other NeSC Glasgow projects. - CH prompted JW to explain the role of Permis and XACML (noting that this is what the OGC use) in his proposed security infrastructure. JW elaborated on a doc he circulated in May on where he see Permis fitting into the SEE-GEO use case. CH requested that he produce a similar doc for VOMS and bear in mind the need to align with OGC approaches. Action: CH to send JW relevant OGC documentation. Action: JW to produce a short briefing paper on how VOMS may fit with SEE-GEO. - Discussion (and agreement) of the desirability of being able to demonstrate secure access to the GLS by the AHM meeting. Action: All, consider further how this might be done, and if it cant be done in the timescale, what the fallback position should be. - CH went over actions from previous mins where not already covered: Action: AT to circulate response from Ken Miller to census metadata observations made by SEE-GEO project. Ongoing actions: Action: CH to synthesize security discussions and document. Action: AH to examine issues raised by PE in relation to OGSA-DAI performance and respond. Current status: Ongoing, will happen when OGSA-DAI team get next release out. (see above as well) Next meeting: Fri 27th July 1400-1500. Note that AH cannot attend.